The Lord's Supper
baptism? Which should be preferred and why? How does baptism work as a means of grace?
References for Further Study:
Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, II, pp. 232–251; Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 601–630; McPherson, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 431–
436; Binnie, The Church, pp. 71–76; Candlish, The Sacraments, pp.
47–83.
THE LORD'S SUPPER
A. Institution of the Lord's Supper. There are four different accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper, namely, in Matt. 26:26–29;
Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23–25. The new sacrament was linked up with the central element in the paschal meal. The bread that was eaten with the lamb was consecrated to a new use, and so was the wine of the third cup or "the cup of blessing." When the real Lamb of God was slain, the bloody sacrament made place for an unbloody one which, like it, had nourishing properties. The passover, which was a symbol with a national flavor, was replaced by one that carried with it no implications of nationalism. The broken bread and the wine symbolize the Lord's broken body and shed blood. The physical eating and drinking of these elements are indicative of a spiritual appropriation of the body and blood of the Lord, that is, of the fruits of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, and are a constant memorial of the redemptive work of the Lord until the great day of His return.
B. The Things Signified and Sealed in the Lord's Supper.
1. THE THINGS SIGNIFIED. Sacraments always represent one or more spiritual truths by means of outward signs. The sign in the Lord's Supper includes not only the visible elements of bread and wine, but also the appropriation of these by eating and drinking.
Several things are signified in the Lord's Supper: (a) It is a symbolical representation of the Lord's death, 1 Cor. 11:26. (b) It symbolizes the believer's participation in the crucified Christ. (c) It represents the effect of this spiritual eating and drinking as giving life, strength, and joy to the soul. And (d) It is a symbol of the union of believers with one another as members of the mystical body of Jesus Christ.
2. THE THINGS SEALED. The Lord's Supper is not only a sign but also a seal. These two aspects of the sacrament are closely related.
The sacrament as a sign or with all that it signifies constitutes a seal.
The seal is attached to the thing signified and is a pledge of its realization. (a) It seals to the participant the great love of Christ revealed in His self-surrender to a bitter and shameful death. (b) It gives the believing partaker of the sacrament the assurance that all the promises of the covenant and all the riches of the gospel offer are his. (c) It even assures the believing participant that the blessings of salvation are his in actual possession. And (d) it is a badge of profession on the part of those who partake of the sacrament in faith.
They profess their faith in Christ as their Saviour, and their allegiance to Him as their King, and solemnly pledge a life of obedience to His divine commandments.
C. The Question of the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. The question as to the nature of the presence of Christ in the Lord's
Supper is one that has long been debated, and one on which there is still considerable difference of opinion. There are four views that come into consideration here.
1. THE VIEW OF ROME. The Church of Rome conceives of the presence of Christ in the sacrament in a physical sense. It maintains that, when the priest utters the formula, "this is my body," bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ. This view is based primarily on a literal interpretation of the words of the institution,
"this is my body." In answer to the objection that even after the pronunciation of the formula the elements still taste like bread and wine, Rome avers that, while the substance of bread and wine are changed, their attributes remain. This view is open to several objections: (a) Jesus stood before the disciples in the body and therefore could not very well say that He had His body in His hand.
(b) Scripture speaks of the bread as bread even after the supposed change has taken place, 1 Cor. 10:17; 11:26–28. (c) A change of the substance of a thing without a corresponding change of attributes is an impossibility. (d) It is contrary to common sense to believe that what looks and smells and tastes like bread and wine is indeed flesh and blood.
2. THE LUTHERAN VIEW. Luther rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation and substituted for it the doctrine of consubstantiation. This avers that, while bread and wine remain what they are, the whole person of Christ, body and blood, is present in, under, and along with the elements. When Christ had the bread in His hand, He held His body along with it, and therefore could say,
"this is my body." On this view everyone who receives the bread also receives the body, whether he be a believer or not. This is no great improvement on the Roman Catholic doctrine. It really makes the words of Jesus mean, this accompanies my body, which is a very unnatural interpretation. Moreover, it is burdened with the impossible notion of the ubiquity of the Lord's glorified human nature, for it represents Christ as locally present wherever the Lord's
Supper is administered.
3. THE ZWINGLIAN VIEW. Zwingli denied the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but at the same time believed that the true communicant conceived of Him as present in a spiritual manner. He stressed the significance of the Lord's Supper as a memorial of what Christ did for sinners and as an act of profession on the part of the participant. It is hardly correct, however, to say that this is all it meant for the Swiss reformer. Some of his statements point to a deeper significance of the sacrament and regard it as a seal or pledge of what God does for the believer in Christ. Yet he does not do justice to this idea. The impression remains that for him the Lord's Supper is mainly a mere sign or symbol, a memorial of the death of Christ, and an act of profession on the part of the believer. There is an evident tendency to exclude the mystical element from the sacrament altogether.
4. THE REFORMED VIEW. Calvin took exception to Zwingli's view as well as to the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views. His conception represents a mean between the two. Instead of the physical and local he taught the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. In distinction from Zwingli he stressed the deeper significance of the sacrament and the mystical communion which the believer enjoys in it. Moreover, he saw in it a seal and pledge of what God did for the believing participant rather than a pledge of the believer's consecration to God. The virtues and effects of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross are present and actually conveyed to the worthy received by the power of the Holy Spirit.
D. The Efficacy of the Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace. The Lord's Supper was instituted for believers only, and therefore does not serve the purpose of beginning the work of grace in the heart, but only of strengthening it. The grace that is received in the sacrament does not differ in kind from that which is received through the instrumentality
of the Word. The sacrament merely adds to the effectiveness of the Word and to the measure of the grace received. It is the grace of an ever closer fellowship with Christ, of spiritual nourishment and quickening, and of an ever increasing assurance of salvation.
According to the Roman Catholics, and also many Anglicans and Lutherans, all those who partake of the Lord's Supper by that very act also receive the grace signified, except when they put an obstacle in the way. The gracious operation of the sacrament does not depend in any way on the faith of the recipient. According to the Reformed conception, however, only those who partake of the sacrament in faith receive the grace that is signified by the external elements.
E. The Person for whom the Lord's Supper is Designed. The Lord's Supper was not instituted for all indiscriminately, but only for those who can actively exercise faith, and who are able to prove themselves as to a correct estimation of the spiritual significance of the Lord's
Supper. This means that children who have not yet come to years of discretion are not fit to partake of this sacrament. And even true believers are entitled to participation in it only when their conduct is not in flagrant opposition to their profession. Hence the apostle Paul insists on the necessity of self-examination, 1 Cor. 11:28–32.
Unbelievers are naturally excluded from the table of the Lord, and professing Christians cannot be admitted, if they consciously and persistently depart from the truth or lead offensive lives.
Questions for Review:
Where do we find accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper?
How does the Lord's Supper differ from the passover? What belongs to the sign in the Lord's Supper? What does this sacrament signify?
What does it seal? What is the Roman Catholic view of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper? How do the Lutherans conceive of it?
What objections are there to these views? What is the Zwinglian